Al Tschaeche's latest idea - YES

["Tsurikov, Nick" <nick.tsurikov@iluka.com>]

Dear Phil,

A couple of comments on your posting:

Firstly: >>>Adding additional radioactivity to consumer products is not a
justifiable practice<<<
The main problem is, I think, with the existence of natural radioactivity in
consumer products.  Like radium in phosphogypsum, for example.  Not the
'addition'.

Secondly: >>> Dilution is not the solution to pollution is a bedrock of
environmental policy and should be maintained<<<
Depends...  If the material has an enhanced concentration of NORM due to its
physical (gravimetric, electrostatic, whatever...) processing, the secular
equilibrium is untouched and I personally do not see any problems with
disposing such material by simply mixing it with 'neutral' sand...

Time constraints prevent me from answering in detail.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear Franz,

You wrote: >>>Who is considering this in any developing country? Nobody.
TENORM is something for saturated developed countries, which have no other
problems and try to find jobs for nuclear physicists in order to avoid
payment for unemployment<<<
I am not utterly convinced that you are correct.  A theoretical example:
There is a developing country A somewhere in Asia or Africa.  It mines and
sells to the developed country B mineral X.
Now, what happens if nuclear physicists & Co. start promoting TENORM
legislation, regulation etc. in country B.  OK, radiation from TENORM
presents some risk, but it is hypothetical and theoretical.  So, what
happens:
Scare-mongers in country B contribute to the discussion and extremely
restrictive regulation is implemented.  Mineral processors in B realise that
they are about to be regulated, cancel all contracts with country A and are
searching for the same/similar mineral X with less NORM in it.  Understaffed
and inexperienced health/environment department in country A gets a copy of
the latest ICRP or IAEA document which confirms that the 'new' legislation
in B is kinda correct.  Even if not they cannot argue much about it since
all the "who is who" in 'radiation matters' are all in developed countries
and they have nobody.
The economy of country A is close to collapse and this may be the final
drop.

Let's be cynical about it (I do not wish to offend anyone here, BUT...) -
who's laughing now?  Nobody, but us, anchovies - radiation protection
professionals, consultants, advisers, regulators etc. "Yeah, buddy, we've
got a job for life now..."  
The comments on the last one are very welcome...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear Al,

I agree 'in general'. 
I did not manage to deduct who wrote the following>>>Find some >washed up
movie star to be your spokesman (worked for the NRA), start a PR >campaign
showing how much radiation is naturally around us.<<<
Yeah, way to go.  I do not believe that nuclear energy associations in US
cannot do the same as NRA did with Charles Heston (am I spelling it right?).
The idea was, from my point of view, brilliant.  With the amount of movie
stars you have in States it should not be a problem.  I don't know - Jack
Nicholson would be perfect, I think.

Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Eneabba, Western Australia
nick.tsurikov@iluka.com <mailto:Nick.tsurikov@iluka.com> 
1000+1 radiation links:
http://eneabba.net/ <http://eneabba.net/> 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html